Literature DB >> 30605893

Comparative performance of the finite element method and the boundary element fast multipole method for problems mimicking transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

Aung Thu Htet1, Guilherme B Saturnino, Edward H Burnham, Gregory M Noetscher, Aapo Nummenmaa, Sergey N Makarov.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A study pertinent to the numerical modeling of cortical neurostimulation is conducted in an effort to compare the performance of the finite element method (FEM) and an original formulation of the boundary element fast multipole method (BEM-FMM) at matched computational performance metrics. APPROACH: We consider two problems: (i) a canonic multi-sphere geometry and an external magnetic-dipole excitation where the analytical solution is available and; (ii) a problem with realistic head models excited by a realistic coil geometry. In the first case, the FEM algorithm tested is a fast open-source getDP solver running within the SimNIBS 2.1.1 environment. In the second case, a high-end commercial FEM software package ANSYS Maxwell 3D is used. The BEM-FMM method runs in the MATLAB® 2018a environment. MAIN
RESULTS: In the first case, we observe that the BEM-FMM algorithm gives a smaller solution error for all mesh resolutions and runs significantly faster for high-resolution meshes when the number of triangular facets exceeds approximately 0.25 M. We present other relevant simulation results such as volumetric mesh generation times for the FEM, time necessary to compute the potential integrals for the BEM-FMM, and solution performance metrics for different hardware/operating system combinations. In the second case, we observe an excellent agreement for electric field distribution across different cranium compartments and, at the same time, a speed improvement of three orders of magnitude when the BEM-FMM algorithm used. SIGNIFICANCE: This study may provide a justification for anticipated use of the BEM-FMM algorithm for high-resolution realistic transcranial magnetic stimulation scenarios.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30605893      PMCID: PMC6546501          DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/aafbb9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neural Eng        ISSN: 1741-2552            Impact factor:   5.379


  32 in total

1.  Brain stimulation using electromagnetic sources: theoretical aspects.

Authors:  L Heller; D B van Hulsteyn
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 4.033

2.  A common formalism for the integral formulations of the forward EEG problem.

Authors:  Jan Kybic; Maureen Clerc; Toufic Abboud; Olivier Faugeras; Renaud Keriven; Théo Papadopoulo
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  On bioelectric potentials in an inhomogeneous volume conductor.

Authors:  D B Geselowitz
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2008-12-31       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  On the numerical accuracy of the boundary element method.

Authors:  J W Meijs; O W Weier; M J Peters; A van Oosterom
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Basic mathematical and electromagnetic concepts of the biomagnetic inverse problem.

Authors:  J Sarvas
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Realistic conductivity geometry model of the human head for interpretation of neuromagnetic data.

Authors:  M S Hämäläinen; J Sarvas
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 4.538

7.  Impact of non-brain anatomy and coil orientation on inter- and intra-subject variability in TMS at midline.

Authors:  Erik G Lee; Priyam Rastogi; Ravi L Hadimani; David C Jiles; Joan A Camprodon
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data.

Authors:  Alexandre Gramfort; Martin Luessi; Eric Larson; Denis A Engemann; Daniel Strohmeier; Christian Brodbeck; Lauri Parkkonen; Matti S Hämäläinen
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Incorporating and Compensating Cerebrospinal Fluid in Surface-Based Forward Models of Magneto- and Electroencephalography.

Authors:  Matti Stenroos; Aapo Nummenmaa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Realistic volumetric-approach to simulate transcranial electric stimulation-ROAST-a fully automated open-source pipeline.

Authors:  Yu Huang; Abhishek Datta; Marom Bikson; Lucas C Parra
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 5.379

View more
  4 in total

1.  Conditions for numerically accurate TMS electric field simulation.

Authors:  Luis J Gomez; Moritz Dannhauer; Lari M Koponen; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Boundary Element Fast Multipole Method for Enhanced Modeling of Neurophysiological Recordings.

Authors:  Sergey N Makarov; Matti Hamalainen; Yoshio Okada; Gregory M Noetscher; Jyrki Ahveninen; Aapo Nummenmaa
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 4.538

Review 3.  Precise Modulation Strategies for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Advances and Future Directions.

Authors:  Gangliang Zhong; Zhengyi Yang; Tianzi Jiang
Journal:  Neurosci Bull       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 5.203

4.  Boundary element fast multipole method for modeling electrical brain stimulation with voltage and current electrodes.

Authors:  Sergey N Makarov; Laleh Golestanirad; William A Wartman; Bach Thanh Nguyen; Gregory M Noetscher; Jyrki P Ahveninen; Kyoko Fujimoto; Konstantin Weise; Aapo R Nummenmaa
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 5.043

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.